Cheptegei and Gidey-Doping or not doping?

astro wrote:

In the end, probably clean is the best we can go with. With Evans I did not see the telltale signs of steroid use, which was the weapon of choice in swimming. As to anything else, blood doping went back at least until the 1970s and was for a long time not considered illegal. I guess you look for patterns, significant changes in form, things like that. I remember Michelle Smith in swimming all the sudden becoming a world beater.

Mary Decker's 1500/3000 win at the 1983 WC should be another example.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:Which of my claims above do you think need to be proved?

How about this one:

rekrunner wrote:It takes a weak mind from an athlete who doesn't believe in himself/herself to believe that doping would help achieve distance world records, and a weak body to justify the need for doping in the first place.

You claim - based on what, your believe? - that Kiptum has a weak mind and a weak body. Too funny.

And this one:

rekrunner wrote:It is unlikely that an athlete of weak mind and weak body could set the world record from a strong world record like Bekele's and Dibaba's.

Strange faith of yours. Also, was Tadese's world record, despite lasting for nine years, not strong?

You ask me to prove things which are self evident.

Resorting to external aid which is against the rules is an indication of a lack of self-confidence in the ability to compete without the external aid. Therefore weak mind.

If doping confers a physical advantage, the body transitions from a weaker state to a stronger state. Therefore weak body.

Therefore Kiptum had a weak mind. His body may or may not have been weak before taking EPO. This depends on whether EPO conferred any physical advantage to an athlete who was born and raised at altitude -- something we cannot know because it was not measured.

Tadese's half-marathon record was weak compared to other events competed more frequently with world record attempts.

Lasting nine-years is an indication of the rare frequency of attempts to run world records.

Armstronglivs wrote:

No, it isn't. All other things being equal, doping confers advantage - or it isn't doping, it is handicapping. No athlete chooses to handicap themselves- and a billion Euro doping black market wouldn't exist if that's what it did.

These are all expressions of your personal faith.

The burden of proof falls on those who need to prove something.

Armstronglivs wrote:

All your claims require proof - which means they can't be proven. They are merely your conviction, which means they have no persuasiveness to anyone aware of the extent of doping today - officially estimated at almost 1 in 2 championship-level athletes.

Soon you may realize that all of these doping threads are threads based largely on faith and unproven assumptions.

Extent of doping is not evidence of performance.

astro wrote:

Sorry but it is a fact that we are talking about records that were previously set and reset by multiple dopers. Being able to exceed dope assisted performances is compelling evidence. Pointing out how ineffective testing is and how rife doping is in all endurance related sports is also evidence. So too is pointing out how easily the dopers beat the alleged controls, assuming local sports authorities make any effort at all.

Performances like this are entitled to no presumption of innocence and it is the height of gullibility to assume they are clean. When a runner easily exceeds previous tainted times, the reality cannot be ignored.

You've piled a lot on top of the fact of two-record holders who ran comparatively slow times when the event was not yet mature.

Evidence of ineffective testing, rifeness of doping, and easily beating controls is not evidence of performance. This is why examples of doping, arguments of prevalence, appeals to testing ineffectiveness, and ease of beating controls are not compelling.

astro wrote:

"H'm. Let's take a trip down memory lane. In 1997 two runner from China came out of no where to break the 5K world record. It was subsequently revealed that the two runners, Dong Yanmei and Jiang Bo, were the subjects of a compulsory doping program.

Next there was Elvan Abeylegesse, who set a new 5k record in 2004. Of course she was banned for doping, banned and stripped of multiple medals.

Next we have Tirunesh Dibaba who broke the record in 2008. Her coach was arrested in an anti-doping operation, an arrest that magically got brushed under the table.

That is just the 5K and that is a lot of doping. You can do the same thing at virtually every distance. In a sport where the doping controls are pitiful. And as the case of China shows, where multiple WRs were suddenly set due to doping, doping is very effective. turning mules into race horses as the saying goes.

So sorry, but the burden of proof is not on the critics noting that a record previously set by a string of dopers was just thoroughly beaten to show that it was not clean. The burden is rather on those claiming it was clean. No reason to think doping was not involved. Again."

-------------------------

Do you think all current top runners dope?

And if, not who are the clean ones?

Do you expect a serious answer? The OP is obviously trolling.

Resorting to external aid which is against the rules is an indication of a lack of self-confidence in the ability to compete without the external aid. Therefore weak mind.

If doping confers a physical advantage, the body transitions from a weaker state to a stronger state. Therefore weak body.[/quote)

So all the Bulgarian weightlifters who routinely test positive at the Olympics have weak bodies? Gatlin and every other sprinter who's doped has a weak body? Getting stronger from doping (as well as talent and training) is proof of a weak body? Seeking to gain advantage over the competition, by whatever means, even if it includes doping, is proof of a weak mind (and not a determination to win?)

You have no understanding of sports.

astro wrote:

It's doping. Gidey did not even pretend to be winded. That's EPO. Nothing compares. Saw it a million times with Armstrong, That is how powerful it is.

The rule is simply that if it seems like doping, it definitely is. Especially in distance sports.

Im not saying she isnt doping but youve got this wrong - she was hurting in that last 200m and then threw up on the track after hugging the pacer. the coaches had wrapped a flag around her to try and shield it from the public's view but way too many people ran over

Armstronglivs wrote:

So all the Bulgarian weightlifters who routinely test positive at the Olympics have weak bodies? Gatlin and every other sprinter who's doped has a weak body? Getting stronger from doping (as well as talent and training) is proof of a weak body? Seeking to gain advantage over the competition, by whatever means, even if it includes doping, is proof of a weak mind (and not a determination to win?)

Now you are almost getting it.

Bulgarian weightlifters, if they got stronger through doping, had weak bodies before doping.

Sprinters like Gatlin and every other sprinter who's doped, if they got stronger through doping, had weak bodies before doping.

Seeking to gain advantage, by means that violate the rules, is an indication of a weak mind, as well as a determination to win.

Cheptegai's progression has been very rapid. Did he change his training somehow? To suddenly smash the long standing 5 and 10k world records means he has changed something and it is working very well.

Probably.

Look in cycling we have evidence that every top cyclist was doping for decades.

In sprinting doping scandals have occurred over and over and it is fair assumption that every record setting sprinter in the last few decades have doped. Putting aside the whole Soviet bloc and China where compulsory doping programs were revealed, we have had Gaitlin, Johnson, Flo Jo, Kersey, Jones, etc.

In baseball we later discovered that virtually every major player of the live ball era was doping.

In swimming the examples are notorious to the point of satire in popular culture.

On this thread I noted how many times doping has accounted for the records we are discussing, making any assumption that runners can exceed those records naturally very naive. Like cycling running is perfectly suited for PEDs, and the PEDs available have become more powerful. Unlike cycling the level of scrutiny is much lower, the testing less rigorous and the chance of exposure in a non-team environment much less. Even with that doping suspensions in runnng are common. If it seems like doping, it certainly is. So yes the record holding runners today are doped to the gills.

Do you even run?

What are your PRs?

If you are faster than me you are a doper.

i did observe that after ahe celebrated she threw up. That couid have been a dozen things, what she ate, when she ate, too much epo, too much blood transfusion, morning sickness. Who knows?

I stand by the fact that she did not look exhausted or spent at all.

Just pointing out the facts. There is no sport more perfectly suited for doping than running, and absolute zero reason to think that it is some magical exception among endurance sports or sports in general.

It is so very sad that many of us are cynical

And the first thing we think is that the athlete doped. Is it possible they trained very hard, they are extremely gifted etc? Perhaps but the past tells us otherwise. Maybe the athlete runs 4 percent faster with drugs that without. Whatever the reason money and fame are the root of all evil

astro wrote:

Just ignore vpointing out the facts. There is no sport more perfectly suited for doping than running, and absolute zero reason to think that it is some magical exception among endurance sports or sports in general.

Athletes will go faster without drugs. All you are doing is endorsing doping.

astro wrote:

Just ignore vpointing out the facts. There is no sport more perfectly suited for doping than running, and absolute zero reason to think that it is some magical exception among endurance sports or sports in general.

Athletes will go faster without drugs. All you are doing is endorsing doping.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So all the Bulgarian weightlifters who routinely test positive at the Olympics have weak bodies? Gatlin and every other sprinter who's doped has a weak body? Getting stronger from doping (as well as talent and training) is proof of a weak body? Seeking to gain advantage over the competition, by whatever means, even if it includes doping, is proof of a weak mind (and not a determination to win?)

Now you are almost getting it.

Bulgarian weightlifters, if they got stronger through doping, had weak bodies before doping.

Sprinters like Gatlin and every other sprinter who's doped, if they got stronger through doping, had weak bodies before doping.

Seeking to gain advantage, by means that violate the rules, is an indication of a weak mind, as well as a determination to win.

You absolutely miss the obvious - because you don't want to see it. It isn't "weak" athletes who dope. Strong athletes dope - to get stronger and thereby maybe better than their competitors, who may also dope. The most talented athletes may dope as it will increase their chances of success, and so they might become world record holders and unbeatable. If they don't dope, they risk losing to those who do.

You have this absurd and unfounded belief that the most talented athletes won't dope - either because they don't need to or that they have different ethics from less talented athletes. Fantasy. The most talented athletes cannot be guaranteed to beat doped competitors. (Rashid Ramzi beat the very best - by doping.) They will not know whether their competition is doped or not - so they will also do what they need to win, which could include doping. Take two equally talented athletes and the doped athlete has an advantage. All elites know this - which is why so many now dope.

Further, there is nothing that shows superior athletes have a different ethical approach to doping, and will not dope. The converse is true. We have seen world record holders across all sports, and championship winners and medallists - virtually whole races in some cases - who have doped. All these athletes are in that tiny pool of being amongst the very best in the world. That hasn't stopped them from doping.

If you argue that the dopers are inherently inferior to the very best athletes (whom they may be matching if not beating) then you are conceding that doping produces miraculous benefits - it makes the "weak" strong - and thereby powerfully incentivises the reason to dope.

wise up wrote:

astro wrote:

Just ignore vpointing out the facts. There is no sport more perfectly suited for doping than running, and absolute zero reason to think that it is some magical exception among endurance sports or sports in general.

Athletes will go faster without drugs. All you are doing is endorsing doping.

Athletes will go evenfasterwithdrugs. All you are doing is demonstrating doping.[/quote]

Fixed.